A recent gem of bourgeois social science on sale in most university bookshops is "Economic Aspects of Student Unrest", published by the Institute for Economic Affairs. This distinguished work has been written by the Deputy Vice Chancellor of York University and Professor of Economics, A.T. Peacock, together with one Mr. A.J. Culyer.
At first the work seems promising since there is a pledge to look for the underlying reasons for student unrest and not to concentrate solely on the activities "of the extreme Maoist and other groups". Though the authors remain true to this intention the end results are far from intellectually satisfying.
[illegible] apply a somewhat unusual methodology to analyse the student revolt - namely the "traditional" micro-economic theory of the market for individual goods. Micro-economic theory is an attempt to work towards a theory of the determination of prices on the market through examining the activities of profit maximising firms and "utility maximising" consumers. Unlike Marx's analysis of the theory of value which concentrates on examining the social relations between the producers, the bourgeois analysis keeps its focus solely on the actual exchange process or market. Culyer and Peacock turn education into a commodity and examine student unrest in terms of the particular conditions of supply and demand in the "education market". They have no place in their model for antagonistic social relations in education as a [illegible] process - they either ignore or (more likely) are unaware of the concept of alienation. Nor do Culyer and Peacock conceive that the process of education may bring the unintended side-effect of an increased critical consciousness of capitalism. They are, of course, firmly committed to capitalism.
To our two "social scientists" the problem is essentially the result of an excess of demand over supply for university places. They postulate that an absence of "consumer sovereignty" on the part of the consumers (students) leads to the discontent. In the allocation of educational opportunities "the more the allocation rule ignores the preferences of consumers, the more animosity there will be between consumers and allocators." If one shops for washing powder one can choose between Omo, Daz, Persil and so on. Hence no reason for the housewife to rebel. However in educational market "rationing devices have to be employed, and since money prices cannot be one of them and the rationing is left to the producers, it is their preferences that count" not those of the students. The problem is exacerbated since the student is "tied" to a university over a period and cannot take his custom elsewhere. Given the absence of opportunity to shop around for his education the student breaks the rules and tries to bend the existing situation to his own needs.
If this explanation of the student revolt seems fairly tortuous it becomes even more so. The complete bankruptcy of Peacock and Culyer's method becomes apparent in their attempt to stretch the category of profit maximising firm to fit the university. "The universities are not concerned with maximising profits, but they are maximising other objectives. By tying in subsidised residences for students, the producers in universities are able to derive an additional source of satisfaction from enforcement of rules of conduct. Formal dinners with academic dress, ladies (or men) out by 10.30 p.m., and so on, are conducive to satisfaction of the benevolent wishes of universities' staff..." Suffice it to say that there is no explanation as to why university staffs [illegible] neither have [illegible] maximising".
Peacock and Culyer are not lacking in positive (one hesitates to say "practical") suggestions and the section entitled Solutions for University Peace" is at least consistent with their previous analysis. First, however, they [illegible] the possibility of executive power - [illegible] decision-making bodies, [illegible] Senate and Faculty [illegible]. Though they [illegible] that for students "this would be a logical extension of their objectives". Their reasoning is that this would lead "more and more to the dissipation of effort by students and staff which might be better spent in the main objective, learning and research." Professor Peacock does not explain how, as a member of staff and Professor of Economics he also finds time to be Deputy Vice-Chancellor of York University. Again it could be argued that the bishops and businessmen or court and council might be dissipating their efforts - what with the moral crisis the country seems to be facing, quite apart from the necessity to get the balance of payments right! Surely Messrs. Culyer and Peacock, as responsible economists, would not quarrel with this: Is this not another example of "a progressive long-term erosion of the gains from specialisation of labour"?
They also argue that students will not be able to participate effectively, anyway, since their efforts will be nullified "by the complexity of administrative machinery" which can only be handled by the "expertise of professionals" - a pretty lame argument when one considers that few, if any, of the members of court, council, senate or faculty board are professional administrators. However, to get to Culyer and Peacock's solution, they suggest more consumer sovereignty in education. Students should get their grants (or loans) and be allowed to shop around - it's as simple as that.
Not much further comment is necessary since Culyer and Peacock have so obviously failed to provide a coherent analysis of the student revolt. Apart from being printed on a better quality paper, their work does not far exceed an article in an interesting journal called "Awake" (May 22, 1969) which says "If you are a young person ask yourself this question: Do I want to be manipulated by the greatest producer of injustices the world has ever known? If you take part in the lawless revolt of today's students, then you will allow yourself to come under the influence of the unseen rebel, Satan, the Devil. You will become a puppet in his hands."